RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-02134 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Line of Duty Determination (LOD) for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome be included in his Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) processing. His discharge be changed to a medical retirement with a 40 percent disability rating for conditions of carpal tunnel and tenosynovitis. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His LOD initiated in July 2014 was not returned to him until February 2015. His LOD took almost eight months although AFI 36-2910, Line of Duty (Misconduct) Determination, states LODs should be completed promptly. He advised his Physical Evaluation Board Liaison Officer (PEBLO) but was not provided an opportunity to submit the LOD. As a result, it was not included in his MEB and he was not afforded due consideration in the Disability Evaluation System (DES) processing. He received a 20 percent rating which only included his knees. He has other service aggravated injuries which were found in the LOD but were not included in the DES processing. The Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) currently rates his disability for carpal tunnel syndrome at 40 percent. This takes him over 30 percent required for retirement. He should have been medically retired instead of discharged with 19 years of service. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 25 February 2015, the applicant was discharged from the Air National Guard (ANG) in the grade of Master Sergeant (MSgt, E-7) with authority and reason, “AFI 36-3212, Chapter 8, Discharge Disability Severance Pay, Non-Combat Related (Enhanced).” He was credited with 19 years total service. According to a DVA rating decision dated 16 January 2015, the applicant was rated at a combined disability rating of 60 percent for conditions of dry eye syndrome, right arm carpal tunnel syndrome, left arm carpal tunnel syndrome, left knee patellofemoral syndrome and tenosynovitis, right knee patellofemoral syndrome and tenosynovitis and left hand DeQuervain’s tenosynovitis. According to the AF Form 356, Findings and Recommended Disposition of USAF Physical Evaluation Board (PEB), dated 2 February 2015, the Informal PEB (IPEB) recommended the applicant be Discharged With Severance Pay (DWSP) with a 20 percent disability rating for unfitting conditions of right knee patellofemoral syndrome and tenosynovitis (10 percent) and left knee patellofemoral syndrome and tenosynovitis (10 percent). His conditions of dry eye syndrome, right arm carpal tunnel syndrome and left arm carpal tunnel syndrome were included as category II conditions that can be unfitting but were currently not unfitting. On 5 February 2015, the applicant acknowledged the recommendations of the IPEB and elected DWSP per 10 U.S.C. § 1203. He stated he understood that he is not entitled to retirement pay under 10 U.S.C. § 1223 or entitled to retirement benefits to include an identification card. On 5 February 2015, the Secretary of the Air Force directed the applicant be separated from active service for physical disability under the provisions of 10 U.S.C. § 1203, with severance pay computed under 10 U.S.C. § 1212. The applicant’s DWSP was effective 25 February 2015. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application is contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force Office of Primary Responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPFDD recommends denial. The conditions the applicant addresses were considered by the PEB even though an LOD was not completed. His bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome was considered by the PEB and was not determined to be unfitting for continued military service. Service members with less than 20 years of active service who are found unfit for continued military service with a disability rating of less than 30 percent receive a disability discharge vice retirement. It should be noted the applicant concurred with the PEB’s recommendation of DWSP. Further, the rating awarded by the DVA during the reconsideration process was applied to those conditions rendering him unfit for continued military service. To grant relief would be contrary to the criteria established by DODI 1332.38, Physical Disability Evaluation, and AFI 36-3212, Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement and Separation. As background, the DOD and DVA disability evaluation systems operate under separate laws. Under Title 10 U.S.C., PEBs must determine if a member’s condition renders them unfit for continued military service relating to their office, grade, rank or rating. The fact that a person may have a medical condition does not mean that the condition is unfitting for continued military service. To be unfitting, the condition must be such that it alone precludes the member from fulfilling their military duties. If the board renders a finding of unfit, the law provides appropriate compensation due to the premature termination of their career. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPFDD evaluation is at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The decision that his bilateral hand conditions were fitting for continued service is a critical error. He was restricted from doing his job to only four hours a day (computer use for one and a half hour) for the period of 13 July 2014 to 24 February 2015 per the AF Form 469, Duty Limiting Condition Report. If it were not for his knee conditions, his hands would have ended his career because he simply could not use them for a complete work day. He had surgery on his right hand and the problem persists. He can currently only use his hands for a short period and is unemployed because he cannot use his hands. These conditions are unfitting without question. There was no way for him to work within a restriction and still be a productive member. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit D. THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations. 2. The application was timely filed. 3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice to warrant granting the requested relief. While the applicant’s response to the Air Force evaluation is noted, he has not provided substantial evidence which, in our opinion, successfully refutes the assessment of his case by the Air Force OPR. Moreover, we find no evidence of an error or injustice in the convening of the applicant’s physical evaluation board which considered his condition of bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome or in the processing of his DWSP. Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force OPR and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of proof of either an error an injustice. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting any of the relief sought in this application. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application. The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-02134 in Executive Session on 10 March 2016 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 18 May 2015, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPFDD, dated 10 June 2015. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 September 2015. Exhibit E. E-mail, Applicant, dated 21 September 2015, w/atchs.